Docket: IMM-1696-15
Citation:
2015 FC 1212
Ottawa, Ontario, October 26, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HRATCH BAJAKIAN
|
|
SONIA BAJAKIAN
|
|
ARMANOUHIE
GHASARIAN
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of
the March 17, 2015 decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the
Immigration and Refugee Board, which found that the applicants are neither
Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or
97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c 27 [Act].
[2]
The applicants are all dual citizens of Lebanon and Syria, as well as Christians and members of the Armenian Orthodox church. Their claims
are based on grounds of nationality, imputed political opinion, religion, and
membership in a particular social group (family). The applicants allege that if
they return to Lebanon, their neighbour, Mr. Samir Al-Akh [the neighbour] will
kill them. In their Personal Information Forms [PIFs], the applicants allege
that the latter harassed them for being “Syrian traitors”. The harassment and
threats escalated in March 2012, after the principal claimant, in the course of
repairing the neighbour’s camera, saw photos of the neighbour surrounded by a
group of armed men in front of a Lebanese forces flag. The applicants allege
that if the Lebanese authorities learned of these photos, the neighbour would
face imprisonment for illegally bearing arms. Following the incident, two men,
who the principal claimant initially believed to be Lebanese Intelligence
agents, visited the principal claimant’s place of work on July 1, 2012 and
tricked him into admitting that he had seen the compromising photos. During the
following week, the two men returned to the store along with the neighbour, at
which point the principal claimant realized that the men were in fact the
neighbour’s friends. The men accused the principal claimant of being a spy for
the Syrian secret service, and threatened him with death. They also went to the
claimants’ family residence, accusing the co-claimants of being Syrian spies,
and stating that they would work to revoke their Lebanese citizenship.
[3]
The RPD did not believe the claimants’ story to
be true and did not consider that the applicants’ subjective fear of having
their Lebanese citizenship revoked was objectively founded since the
revocations of citizenship by the Lebanese government cited by the applicants
were limited to 176 people in October 2011, and “the
main reason behind all the revocations is that the granting of citizenship is
based on falsified documents”. The applicants, who were granted Lebanese
citizenship under Decree 5247, confirm they received their citizenship
officially and legally. While there is some evidence to suggest that a number
of ethnic groups, including Syrians, had their citizenship revoked on the basis
of ethnicity, the RPD was of the view that since revocations have not occurred
since October 2011, it is unlikely that the applicants’ citizenship would be
revoked in the future. The RPD also found that the co-claimants’ submissions
with respect to gender-related persecution were not credible for the reason
that they failed to demonstrate how such persecution applied to their own
personal circumstances.
[4]
The sole issue today is whether the various
findings made by the RPD are supported by the evidence and by a reasonable
decision-making process. The applicants generally submit to the Court that the
Board’s main conclusion of non-credibility was based on erroneous findings of
fact, while they do not challenge the reasonableness of the Board’s conclusion
with respect to their fear of having their citizenship revoked. In particular,
at the hearing of this application, applicants’ counsel submitted that the RPD
erred in discarding the principal claimant’s testimony that the two associates
of his neighbour were Lebanese Intelligence/Secret Service agents.
[5]
The standard of review when reviewing the RPD’s
credibility findings is reasonableness (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, [2008]
1 RCS 190 at para 51 [Dunsmuir]). I see no reviewable error on the part
of the RPD as the impugned decision “falls within a
range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the
facts and law” [Dunsmuir at para 47].
[6]
The RPD’s reasons for dismissing the claim of
fear of persecution on the part of the applicants’ neighbour and the Lebanese
Secret Services are clear and intelligible:
(a)
The applicants did not provide credible evidence
that the neighbour would actually be imprisoned by Lebanese authorities because
of his ties with the Lebanese forces militia and/or weapons possession. This
conclusion is supported by the documentary evidence which establishes that the
laws relating to weapons possession are not enforced in Lebanon.
(b)
It is not plausible that the neighbour would
have brought the principal claimant his camera containing the incriminating
photographs. The RPD was allowed to reject the principal claimant’s suggestion
that the neighbour brought the camera into his shop in order to cause more
problems for the principal claimant.
(c)
The principal claimant testified that the
applicants were targeted by members of the Lebanese Intelligence/Secret Service
[spies] is also marred with inconsistencies. The principal claimant wrote in
his PIF that the two men who came to his place of work claiming to be
government agents were in fact friends of his neighbour or members of the
Lebanese forces militia. During oral testimony, the principal claimant insisted
the men were government agents because they showed him their identity cards
(although he admitted not having had the time to read what the identity cards
said, only that they had the Lebanese republic logo) and introduced themselves
as government agents. The applicants reassert today that the principal
claimant’s account is true and that the latter had reasons to believe that the
two associates of his neighbour were Lebanese spies.
(d)
The applicants omitted significant allegations
in their PIFs. The applicants should have mentioned that they were threatened
by the neighbour and other neighbours during the period from 1976 to 2012,
since these claims could constitute persecution on a cumulative basis. The RPD
did not accept the principal claimant’s explanation that the PIFs focused on
the more serious incidents occurring in 2012, since the RPD did not believe the
2012 incidents actually occurred. No serious argument has been brought to the
attention of the Court that could disturb this finding.
(e)
The applicants’ claims are undermined by the
testimony regarding the brother of the principal claimant and first co-claimant
to the effect that he has not been involved in any incidents with the neighbour
or the alleged Lebanese Intelligence/Secret Service agents, despite the fact
that the brother is a similarly-situated person, is known to the neighbour, and
would presumably be traceable by the Lebanese Intelligence/Secret Service
agents. Again, this finding is not seriously challenged by the applicants.
[7]
There is no reason to disturb the credibility
findings of the RPD with respect to the allegations concerning the incidents
involving the neighbour and his two associates. In the case at bar, the
principal claimant contradicted himself several times during oral testimony,
and was unable to name one example where a person was imprisoned for carrying
arms in Lebanon despite having stated that he knew of many such cases.
Furthermore, the principal claimant’s account during oral testimony that the
neighbour’s two associates were Lebanese spies contradicted his PIF, which
stated that these men were merely the neighbour’s friends and also members of
the Lebanese forces. The applicants’ credibility was further put into question
since neither the neighbour nor his associates threatened the brother of the
principal claimant and first co-claimant, although he is a similarly situated
person, undermining the claimants’ assertions that they are being targeted by
the neighbour and by the alleged Lebanese Intelligence/Secret Service agents.
It was also reasonable for the RPD to find that the applicants should have
indicated in their PIFs that they had suffered abusive threats from Mr. Al-Akh
and other neighbours over a period of more than 30 years. The RPD also
concluded that the fact that the applicants still pay $20.00 a year to rent
their residence in Lebanon demonstrates a lack of subjective fear of the
neighbour or the Lebanese Intelligence/Secret Service agents – a finding that
was not unreasonable.
[8]
In conclusion, I do not find any grounds to
grant the application. Counsel agree that this case does not raise any question
of general importance.
Email this Content